Keskustelujen arkisto

HARRY: (said)...
> DON R.:
> I was that one guy (who didn't like "Super Snooper Strikes Again"), and I
indeed read the European (Dutch) version
> first. This may have distorted my opinion about the story, but later
> when I read the USA version, I still thought the story was a
> Barks rip-off.
> But then again, I don't like superhero comics at all.

Hm. Then I'd think you should have liked that story all the more. It was
designed to appeal to people who disliked super-hero comics, showing how a
Donald Duck (type) story is superior. Oh, well... back to the drawing
board...

> PER-ERIK:
> (Sob) It's not fair! I have to pay about $112 for Gladstone's hardcover,
> and it's only got 225 pages! Which extra stories does the Swedish edition
> include?

I think this has been mentioned before: Gladstone's hardcover is the same
as the 4 albums without the covers but with a hardcover... and 4 extra
pages which contain an autographed title page, a contents page, and a new
introduction.
The Egmont hardcover will have the same stories with different coloring
than when Egmont first printed them, and new (hand) lettering. The texts
will be the expanded versions as seen on Dan Shane's website. And the other
extra meterial will include the Gladstone and Ehapa covers (minus
lettering) and other unused covers, as well as a batch of unused script
sequences.
But another extra you'd get in the Gladstone hardcover involves that new
introduction. It was written by Geof Blum and due to some snafu, Gladstone
didn't let me glance at it before printing. As a result, when I received
the loose page "signature" (I think it's called) to sign the title page, I
was shocked by some things I read in Blum's intro. He's saying that I
developed the "Lo$" for Disney Comics, whom I had proudly and loudly
refused to work for! And there were other incorrect statements about the
development of the "Lo$" which I have no clue why he invented. There was
also a false claim about a statement I supposedly repeatedly made to
interviewers, and the implication that my "Lo$" was only popular with young
fans of modern, violent super-hero comics. It's one thing for these errors
to appear in a publication I have no involvement with, but the entire
purpose of this particular book was for me to place my autograph on it, and
I couldn't allow myself to sign pages that contained factual errors of an
actually insulting ilk.
So, what I did was make notations on the incorrect lines, by hand, and
signed the book a second time. This involved me handling each page FIVE
times rather than just once, all on my own "time". But I didn't know any
other way to deal with it. So, the bonus you'll get if you buy the
Gladstone hardback, is to own a copy of the world's first example (I'm only
guessing here!) of a book where *every single copy of the entire edition is
corrected, by hand, personally, by the author*! Hah! Let's see the
Great Leslie top THAT!
(Oops... slipping into movie buff-ery again...)

Hi,
I've sent this Junebug97 person an e-mail detailing how to
unsubscribe(why is it that so many people seem unable to perform this
function when it's really, really easy and there's instructions at the
beginning of each digest!!).

DON M:

>KFITZ --
>"When I grew up, political correctness was called self righteousness."
> I always called it common courtesy. Surely, there are
> excesses -- but I see far more racism, bile, and just plain hatred
> masquerading as a legitimate response to "political correctitude"
> than I do the true excesses of political correctitude itself.

well, maybe peoples opinions of what "common courtesy" is differs. Theres a
difference between being courteous and being SO considerate that you get
imobilized trying to please everyone at the same time. If you do that
nothing will ever get done since there will always be opposing factions.
When it comes to comics, it seems better to me not to censor stories because
of trivial little things -thereby pleasing the few people who actually care-
and instead encouraging those that don't like them to just not read them!

DOMINIK:

>published this expensive Comic-Box. All 'real' Don Rosa fans already have
those
>stories, so why should they spent that much money on it?

There are lots of Don Rosa fans that don't actively collect the Donald Duck
comics, and even if they do that doesn't mean they'll have all 12 chapters
of "life and times", after all, it's been a while since they were printed
here now.

RIK:

>though. For me his drawings are imitations of the real thing.

Well, all post-Barks stories are imitations, but remember that Barks himself
didn't create Donald or the nephews(though he certainly was responsible for
their character developments). So the options here seem to be that

A) No more duck stories are created since they are imitations

B) They are all drawn in a way that resembles the Barks style as closely as
possible (wouldn't that be a bit boring?)

or

C) Other artists carry the torch forward, adding their own twists along the way.

While liking someones art is obviously just a matter of personal taste,
isn't it a bit limiting to dislike other styles just because Barks came
first(not that I'm saying they are in any way superior to Barks, they just
have different interpretations)? Barks was a landmark artist, but that
shouldn't mean that none of the other artists are any good. :-)

>it's such a joy I'm about to send for the Comics & Stories (don't tell
>my wife how much this is costing!)

hehe, yeah they're pretty expensive; I only have about 15 altogether. I have
three of the old hardback volumes from the eighties (three books to a
volume), but I wish the stories were in color.....

OTA:

>
>Yes! I agree! Death to all politically correct dictators!!!!

hear hear!

DAVE FENSKE:

>
>1) Tarjei Kidd Olsen and Rik Pierce have been discussing the art of The
>Secret of the Incas. That was one of the recent stories I took a good hard
>look at in the comic shop before deciding "Naaa...." Actually, it didn't
>take that long. I just don't like the style - it looks too childish,
>amateurish, sloppy. I know I'm being critical but that's my reaction.

Personally I think the art of f.eks Colomer (see -among others- #45 of DDA)
is much more monotonous and boring(even though it looks much nicer when
Gladstone -and not Egmont- has colored the stories).
I don't think Cavazzanos art is amateurish, he's been drawing the ducks for
a long time now (anyone know HOW long?).

>most of the stories are not that stunning as stories (except for some of
>Barks and Don Rosa's).

stunning or not, even THEIR stories need the supporting art in order to be
something really special.

>My Dad (who has never read a comic in his life) somehow was given a German
>Uncle Scrooge (Onkle Dagobert??) magazine. I must say I wasn't that
>impressed with the visual contents there either. But that was only one
>issue.
>

most issues are roughly the same(unless the comics are radically different
in Norway as compared to the German #).

>I like the stories Don does where
>he continues an old Barks story. Adds to the continuity of the Disney
>Universe

I agree!

>It's clear you're a really humble guy who doesn't appreciate his own
>genius.

You really should learn to appreciate your art more, Don

|| <<<<Tarjei Kidd Olsen>>>> ||
||___________________________||
|| http://home.sol.no/~kidd/ ||
|| (Email removed) ||

>The Swedish Hardcover book of LO$ will be released in the begining of
>november. The book has a NEW, beautiful cover, and it contains 272
>pages. The price is 195 kr (about 26 dollars ).

>The Danish price is BTW DKr. 245, even if the value of a Swedish
>krone today is only 88,64 of the Danish krone. So as a Dane I'm
>paying the equivalent of US$10 _more_ for the same product.

One of Hachette's future project is to publish a Don Rosa Lo$ album for
something like 15-20 F (3 or 4 US $), althought that's not for the near
future.

Tarjei Kidd Olsen wrote:

>Personally I think the art of f.eks Colomer (see -among others- #45
>of DDA) is much more monotonous and boring(even though it looks much
>nicer when Gladstone -and not Egmont- has colored the stories).

"Colomer"'s art is sometimes extremely poor (e.g. in some Italian
stories, where the background characters all look the same, with all
Duck faces badly drawn), and - that's so strange - on some other cases
the illustrations are very well done. I've seen some Dutch Jos=E9 Carioca
stories which were **really** superb; the art had something similar to
Paul Murry's best. But I have to admit that his recent work for Egmont
is one of the less interesting (just like some of his recent short DD
stories for GP). BTW, I don't like modern colors (such as gradations
**everywhere**, that's so ugly, really!).

>I don't think Cavazzanos art is amateurish, he's been drawing the
>ducks for a long time now (anyone know HOW long?).

You're right, Cavazzano's art is all but "amateurish". Just try to say
this to our Italians, who consider that he *is* *the* creator (together
with Massimo De Vita?) of the "new Italian school". And he indeed has
been drawing ducks for a long time: his first work (adding ink on
Scarpa's pencil) was done for "Paperino agente dell'F.B.I." (or maybe
that only was his second work, I'm not sure), sometimes around 1962 (he
was very young, but once again I'm not sure of the date). I calculated
that he will break Floyd Gottfredson's record (45 years - Carl Barks
doesn't count because he didn't work during a long time) in just a few
years now!

Luca Boschi:

Thanks, for your inputs and all the informations in it. Maybe you will
add something about my comments on Giorgio Cavazzano (to think that he
will be near me at Lucca, in the reality!).

Stefan Dios:

>As an aside, perhaps more interesting, even if Disney lost rights to
>the character, don't they even own their own cartoon?

I don't know about this, but I would like to say that a comics
adpatation of that cartoon was published in Silly Symphonies (and
Alberto Becattini's Disney Index probably would give you the artist's
name). Remember that we are supposed to talk about Disney **comics**,
and I just try to help you here...

Francois

Don M wrote <<Fans of Wodehouse might also enjoy the books of Thorne Smith"
Possibly, tho I don't think Smith's appeal is nearly as great
as that of Wodehouse. I've used the latter as bedtime reading with
my kids for several years now (interspersed among the Heinlein,
Barks, T.H. White, Piers Anthony, Hal Foster, etc.). Wodehouse goes
over so well with them, I thought I'd try Thorne Smith. To prepare
myself, I reread a couple, and they just don't hold up as well.>>

???!!! Different strokes for different folks, as I greatly enjoy T.Smith;
but I'm commenting because I'm surprised at you're wanting to read them to
your kids. (How old are your kids?)
I mean part of Smith's appeal, then and to me now, is the amount of
suggestiveness that Smith puts in these books. I mean these books are
filled with sexual overtones (yes, even the Topper books. Heck he even wrote
one book about a Bishop's jockey shorts). You read portney's complaint to
your kids too?

Steven Rowe

David B. Fenske (on "The secret of Incas"):

> I just don't like the style - it looks too childish,
>amateurish, sloppy.

AHA! So this time it has happened!
You see, I've always been envious that you come to discuss Don Rosa's
stories loooong before I can read them here in Italy... But on "The secret
of Incas" I scooped you!

I'll quot a posting of mine from Digest #121:

>
>Of course I wanted to read it immediately, and it IS good!
>
>Well, since (you have well understood this) I am a polemicist, I'll say that
>IMHO Cavazzano is not at his best in this story (sort of... how can I say...
>thrown away art... like he was in a hurry...)

To which Byron replied (in Digest #131):

>
>It took him four months to draw 63 pages, so I don't *think* he was
>rushed...
>

But I am **glad** to see that others have that "sloppy" feeling...

Cavazzano is one of the most famous Italian Disney artists nowadays, and I'm
afraid he is a little **too** conscious of this. His style IMHO has been
getting better and better since his beginnings as a Scarpa emulator, UNTIL a
few years ago when he seems to have started losing interest in details; and
moreover the inking got too thick (that might not be his fault, but I guess
he approves of it or he would ask for another inker... a thick inking might
compensate the lack of details...).
Well, as I said, I am glad to see that I am not alone in this opinion. And,
also, this comment of mine should let you guess what I think of Don's
<needless and irritating details>, shouldn't it? ;-)

Marco

[who sadly thinks that the Italian political situation can only be commented
by this quotation, supposedly by Einstein: there are only two infinite
things in nature, the universe and human stupidity; but I am not sure about
the former]

Hi,

DON R. (and everyone):
Wow! Today I received the # of Donald Duck containing
your Huey, Dewey and Lewey 60th anniversary story...Excellent! It goes
straight into my top ten favourite Rosa stories list (not that I have an
actual top 10 list, but if I did this story would be in it;)! I find it to
be one of your funniest stories yet, with a large number of gags and
hilarious(argh, I hate that word; it sounds so corny) situations. I'm
impressed with the way you managed to make the ducks look younger in the
flashback. I won't mention anything about the plot to avoid ruining the
story for those who haven't read it yet....

The "new" Carl Barks story I was referring to last week was indeed drawn by
Daan Jippes. But it's hardly newly drawn; it's been published at least in
the netherlands in 1995(according to the database). Could someone tell me
if this story was drawn by someone else before that? I recollect seeing this
story before....? The story code is H 94141.

|| <<<<Tarjei Kidd Olsen>>>> ||
||___________________________||
|| http://home.sol.no/~kidd/ ||
|| (Email removed) ||

Joe Torcivia and all other readers:

Please don't post warnings about email messages bearing viruses. It is
absolutely impossible to infect your system (let alone reformat your hard
drive) by simply reading ASCII text. You are as likely to catch a cold by
watching television.

It is fair to be cautious about messages that have files such as executable
programs or Word or Excel documents that can contain macro programs within
them, and if you don't know the source well, don't run such programs. Rest
assured, though, that the only virus that gets spread in the text of email
messages are the virus warnings themselves! You can tell by the unearthly
long list of folks that Joe sent this message to how widespread this JOIN
THE CREW warning is going to become. I've received the same warning at
least 10 times in the last 3 weeks.

For the last time -- You CANNOT make your PC sick by reading email. Period.

TARJEI:
>The "new" Carl Barks story I was referring to last week was indeed drawn by
>Daan Jippes. But it's hardly newly drawn; it's been published at least in
>the netherlands in 1995(according to the database). Could someone tell me
>if this story was drawn by someone else before that? I recollect seeing this
>story before....? The story code is H 94141.

This story ("Bottled Battlers") was first drawn for "HDL Junior
Woodchucks" #10 by Tony Strobl in the early 70s. It was repinted
in the Swedish weekly #13 of 1973 (with 2 pages missing).
[This information was from the Database as well.]

BTW: I think this story is one of Barks' best JW stories. And Jippes'
art
makes the story much more enjoyable to read than the original.

--Harry.

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V97 Issue #220
******************************************